INDUSTRIES 



wainers, who numbered twenty-eight in 

 1 57 1 but had dwindled down in 1583 to six. 

 Four Dutchmen dwelling in St. Olave's 

 parish in November 1571 are described as 

 ' parchmenters ' or makers of parchment. 



In Bermondsey there was at the end of the 

 sixteenth century a very considerable foreign 

 settlement, but it is impossible to say with 

 any exactness what proportion of it was en- 

 gaged in the leather trade. Walter van 

 Stripen of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, 

 leather-dresser, whose will is dated 10 Feb- 

 ruary 1603-4, and was proved on 17 March 

 following,^ may in all probability be identified 

 with the Walter van Strete of the subsidy 

 assessment of 1595 who had two aliens in 

 his service.* 



James Chibball, in his will proved 7 Octo- 

 ber 1606,' describes himself as a citizen and 

 leather-seller of London, although it appears 

 that he was a resident in Bermondsey. The 

 same is the case with John Steward* and 

 George Lane,* whose wills are dated respec- 

 tively 1600 and 1603. The necessity of 

 being free of their respective London com- 

 panies was probably forced upon all who were 

 concerned in the leather industry within the 

 three mile circuit of the city. Certainly in 

 the case of the curriers it was so enacted by 

 an Act of James L,* which reinforced most 

 of the previous legislation by which the 

 doings of all artificers ' occupying the cutting 

 of leather ' were regulated. So Thomas 

 Blest, who dwelt in the parish of St. Thomas, 

 Southwark, and made his will on 22 Novem- 

 ber 1608, was a citizen and currier of Lon- 

 don,'' and in Hilary term of 1 606-7 three 

 Southwark shoemakers were summoned to 

 the Exchequer for using the trade of wet 

 curriers within the prohibited circle and put- 

 ting large quantities of tanned leather to sale, 

 though they were not free of the Curriers' 

 Company.* Southwark market had however 

 long been recognized as a privileged centre 

 of the leather trade, and as early as 1562-3 

 had been specially exempted from the legisla- 

 tion that made it obligatory for all red tanned 

 leather brought into the London area to be 

 searched and sealed at Leadenhall.^ This 

 privilege was confirmed by the later Act of 

 1603-4.*' According to Stow, ' the market 



» Surr. Arch. Coll. xi. 285. 



2 Kirk. op. cit. ii. 477. 



3 Surr. Arch. Coll. xii. 194. 



* Ibid. XI. 123. 6 Ibid. 121. 



« Stat. I Jas. I. cap. 22. 

 ' Surr. Arch. Coll. xiii. 196. 

 8 K. R. Mem. Hil. R. 4 Jas. I. 104, 105. 

 ^ Stat. 5 Eliz. cap. 8, § 23. 

 " Stat. I Jas, I. cap. 22, § 32. 



hill where the leather is sold' was in Long 

 Southwark on the right hand after passing 

 through St. Mary Overy's Close and Pepper 

 Alley. 



The re-enactment of the old penal laws 

 controlling the leather trade of the kingdom 

 by the Act of 1603-4 with its increased 

 scale of fines and additional regulations was 

 doubtless an attempt to revive legislation, 

 which in the course of time had tended to 

 become a dead letter. The dormant ener- 

 gies of the informer were awakened by the 

 increased rewards promised for successful 

 prosecutions, and doubtless if he could obtain 

 for himself the third part of such fines as were 

 alleged to have been incurred by Goldfin 

 Wright, a widow of St. Mary Magdalen's 

 parish, and Richard Pratt of Bermondsey 

 Street, he might see for himself an easy road 

 to wealth. In Easter term 1606 Goldfin 

 Wright was charged with having tanned 

 1,000 sheepskins with warm or hot oozes, 

 for each of which she was liable to be fined 

 ;^I0, making a total fine of ;^io,ooo," and 

 in Trinity term following, Pratt was charged 

 with having committed a similar offence in 

 the parish of St. George, Southwark, and 

 with having incurred a like penalty, in addi- 

 tion to which, in his case, there was the 

 punishment of standing in the pillory on cer- 

 tain market days in the Borough.*^ Andrew 

 Weyman of Southwark, a merchant who 

 would appear to have had a large business in 

 the wool as well as the leather trade, was 

 another offender to the same extent.'^ Gold- 

 fin Wright appears again in the following 

 Michaelmas term. This time the charge 

 against her is of having made 1,000 pelts of 

 5,000 sheep and lamb skins, that is to say she 

 had sold the skins before converting them 

 into tawed or tanned leather or into parch- 

 ment or other necessary uses.'* 



The actual number of offences alleged in 

 each of these cases was doubtless only an 

 approximate guess on the part of the in- 

 former, but the fact that an attempt could be 

 made to recover fines of such magnitude from 

 Bermondsey and Southwark leather manufac- 

 turers may be taken as an indication of the 

 prosperity which was presumed at the time 

 to have attended those engaged in the indus- 

 try in this neighbourhood. How far this 

 prosperity may have been due to the intro- 

 duction of foreign artisans and methods we 

 are still unable to judge, but that the local 

 industry did not originate with them we have 



" Exch. K. R. Mem. R. East. 4 Jas. I. 97. 

 " Ibid. Trin. 4 Jas. I. 34. " Ibid. 



i» Ibid. Mich. 4 Jas. I. 253. 



335 



